IV could change it because some people would beter like the game, thus creating a stronger base for there games and maybe eventually attracting new players. And for the limitations, yes this are limitations, but ordering your mwg's around all the time still seems better to me then waypoints, and I guess that's what you do when playing starcraft. So right now people who micromanage alot benefit from the fact that there isn't a waypoint system.

Cyan. wrote:IV could change it because some people would beter like the game, thus creating a stronger base for there games and maybe eventually attracting new players. And for the limitations, yes this are limitations, but ordering your mwg's around all the time still seems better to me then waypoints, and I guess that's what you do when playing starcraft. So right now people who micromanage alot benefit from the fact that there isn't a waypoint system.

If I were IV, I would not find that to be a convincing argument. Show me some numbers that say that the time I would need to invest in adding a waypoint system, testing that system, and making sure that it doesn't throw off the balance of the game is worth it. Quite frankly, I can't imagine that you would make more than one or two extra sales on the basis of having waypoints. I just don't see how it is a big deal, one way or the other. The fact that neither you nor Qjet has managed to make a very strong argument in favor of adding waypoints further confirms the argument that most people just don't care.

because we don't have strong arguments people don't care? haha keep it up!

I don't know nothing about the time that it will cost to implent it, but now this:

1. As the last of the bedroom programmers, I like to think they have not only the philosphy of making money, but also that they want as much gamers as possible to enjoy there game no matter what (within reasonable afcourse).

2. Because Qjest says that its in alot of RTS games, I think new (RTS) gamers while give this game a try, because it adds some new element of strategy and I think, all tho it was not ment this way, that Multiwinia can be a serious RTS game with a lot of strategy.

3. Last I just like Qjet and I like to agree with him (it seems we both like stupid arguments then).

Cyan. wrote:1. As the last of the bedroom programmers, I like to think they have not only the philosphy of making money, but also that they want as much gamers as possible to enjoy there game no matter what (within reasonable afcourse).

You are now putting words into IV's mouth. You should try and track down their manifesto -- assuming that the IV philosophy is still similar to that of the manifesto, having users enjoy their games is not the primary purpose. Even if it were, there is no possible way that you can ensure that everyone will enjoy the game. Some people might find the game more enjoyable with waypoints (though I honestly don't believe that more than a handful even care), but some may find it less enjoyable (again, probably not even a handful care). Thus, your appeal to IV's philosophy seems to fall short somehow.

Cyan. wrote:2. Because Qjest says that its in alot of RTS games, I think new (RTS) gamers while give this game a try, because it adds some new element of strategy and I think, all tho it was not ment this way, that Multiwinia can be a serious RTS game with a lot of strategy.

I can argue, just as effectively, that waypoints actually remove strategy (in that you don't have to micro manage units, and you don't have to capture territory in order to issue a string of orders). I would argue that waypoints would remove strategy from the game. Which of us is right? Doesn't matter -- what matters is which one of us IV thinks is right. At the moment, I would tend to believe that IV agree with me on this point -- people asked that waypoints be added to Darwinia, and that never happened, so I think it is safe to assume that IV considered waypoints, and dismissed them. Now, I may be proven wrong at some point in the future, if IV happens to add waypoints, but I honestly don't think that this will ever happen.

Cyan. wrote:3. Last I just like Qjet and I like to agree with him (it seems we both like stupid arguments then).

It seems if i'm going to convince you i'm going to have to do it one point at a time, through a checklist
1.Waypoints vs Officers
A. officer function
B. waypoint function
2.Gameplay Mechanics
A. priorities
B. user intentions

Lets start at the beginning.

What is the function of an officer?
It is to constantly direct forces within its radius to a destination, these inturn can be to other officers, thus being a standing order waypoint

What is the function of a waypoint?
It is to direct a selected force along a set of points to a final destination

an argument that officers are waypoints thus we don't need waypoints is just the same as saying
"a single officer is an order, thus we don't need to be able to manually move units"

Qjet leave it man, xander is a real hard ass, what you gonna do? You can learn a monkey the difference between a officer and a waypoint, hack even I can learn it, but a guy like xander.. waste of time!

edit: side note, It's arrogent to assume ones position is right. You have to acknowledge the possibility that waypoints will detrimentally effect the game, xander obviously has good reason to think so. I don't, but i could be missing something obvious.

Sure, but those only apply do production buildings, don't they? (Although, in case the production buldings are actually upgrade buildings, you can chain the rally point orders. That was quite nifty in Battle Realms.)

Qjet wrote:an argument that officers are waypoints thus we don't need waypoints is just the same as saying"a single officer is an order, thus we don't need to be able to manually move units"

Disagree?

Not at all And if you look at original Darwinia, that was the choice back then. You had no direct control over your Darwinians.

Now, for the record, I'm not opposed to the addition of waypoints. I just don't see how their absence is a problem. Internally, I bet there already IS a waypoint system. I can't imagine every Multiwinian running its own pathfinding routine. Instead, I'd say that if you give them a move order with a complicated path, they'll get the vertices of the path that is rendered as destinations in a list that they then move by, and they just dumbly move towards each one. So it's just an interface question. (My interface suggestion would be to use CTRL, which currently just disables pathfinding, for it: hold it and click on the various points the Multiwinians should travel to in order. That doesn't conflict with anything that's already there.) However, since it's just an interface question, I also think it's a safe bet that the omission of manual waypoints is entirely deliberate.

Qjet wrote:What is the function of an officer?It is to constantly direct forces within its radius to a destination, these inturn can be to other officers, thus being a standing order waypoint

Yes and no. An officer in goto mode directs units. Officers can be turned off and on, and can create formations, as well. However, in general, I agree with your point.

Qjet wrote:What is the function of a waypoint?It is to direct a selected force along a set of points to a final destination

So, basically, a waypoint is a one time use officer. It would be equivalent to creating an officer, waiting for a particular group of units to go by it, then destroying that officer. There is not, as I see it, any great fundamental difference between "standing orders" and "waypoints," except that one is intended to stick around, and the other is intended to be one time only. Honestly, Multiwinia is simple enough in interface and mechanics that I really don't see the benefit of making the distinction.

Qjet wrote:an argument that officers are waypoints thus we don't need waypoints is just the same as saying"a single officer is an order, thus we don't need to be able to manually move units"

But I am not saying that officers are waypoints, I am saying that everything that you might do with waypoints in another game can be done with officers in this one, or isn't something that you would need to do in Multiwinia.

Generally, when I play Multiwinia, I set up an officer (or two) at each spawn point (the second would be in formation). These officers tell DGs to go to someplace near the frontlines, or to another officer who will give them further orders. In this regard, all DGs are given orders from the moment they are born. So, there is no reason that I would need waypoints to give DGs orders upon creation -- they are already being directed to some location.

Once they get to where they are going, they are likely to be engaging in combat. In combat, there really is not a lot of reason to maneuver DGs around a lot. They do most of the fighting for themselves, and the fine degree of control that waypoints might give you is almost entirely negated by the attack-fire-run AI of the DGs -- in combat, they are likely to disregard many of your orders, anyway. Furthermore, when you are in combat with your DGs, the scale of the battle is generally small enough that the problems with the pathfinding algorithm don't manifest.

So, again, I really don't see the advantage of having waypoints. I am not saying that you are wrong, I just don't understand the necessity. Like bert_the_turtle, I am not really opposed to waypoints (well, that is not entirely true -- if you asked me, point blank, I would be forced to say that waypoints would complicate the Multiwinia interface, and not provide any great advantage in terms of usability, but that the effect would be relatively minor -- I am slightly opposed to waypoints). I just don't understand why you and Cyan. are so passionate about them, and I don't think that either of you really understands who you need to make the case to, or how strong that case needs to be.

Introversion are in charge of changing the game. Personally, if I were Introversion, my opinion would be that the arguments that you have made are pretty weak -- you make a case for waypoints, but you don't make an incredibly strong one, and I don't want to spend the time rewriting the game to make it work. That is the compelling reason that I was talking about earlier -- you don't need to convince me, you need to convince IV.

Wow. This is... this is possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard anyone say about IV's games, and that includes those people who thought UJplink was real.

You'll note that other games also don't have units which have their own AI, and can therefore wander off if you don't watch them.

Multiwinia isn't other games.

Cyan wrote:2. Because Qjest says that its in alot of RTS games, I think new (RTS) gamers while give this game a try, because it adds some new element of strategy and I think, all tho it was not ment this way, that Multiwinia can be a serious RTS game with a lot of strategy.

And here we come to the crux of all these arguments. "Multiwinia would be a much better game if it was serious/hardcore". Here's a newsflash: A game where 2d sprites shoot lasers out of their chests isn't hardcore, and never will be. If you think that Starcrafts waypoint system makes it so much better than Multiwinia, then go play it, and stop arguing a point which comes from the crowd who makes every game identical to the last, just becuase it's a secure way to make money.

Pinky wrote:A game where 2d sprites shoot lasers out of their chests isn't hardcore, and never will be.

Not necessarily. A game's art style is not what makes it hardcore. Although it's clear that the direction Introversion wanted to take with Multiwinia was such that it couldn't ever considered to be hardcore. And for that, I thank them. I SUCK at RTS games

Officers can to one thing that no other waypoint/rallypint in any other game can do. You can put two at a spawn point going different directions and (when properly positioned) they will split up the stream of multiwinians into two.

Selecting and right clicking 'a few points' will not work. Once you place the first 'waypoint' you will automatically deselect the waypoint. Instead, you can either use the pathfinding which wont fork if you dont want to take the most direct route because, say, thats where the battle is. Or you can use multiple officers. ONE FOR EACH 'WAYPOINT'. If the path-finding is not doing what you want, hold down CTRL.

Rather than going point by point, can you please get to where you are going; i.e. waypoint, standing order, rally point -- what difference does it make? How would the game be better with rally points? What difference would it make? Why should IV invest their time into adding waypoints into the game. I understand your distinction between waypoints and the standing orders that officers give -- but what difference does it make for gameplay? Why change a system that already works (aside from the pathfinding issues, which are still going to be an issue, even with waypoints)?

Pinky: stop being an ass. Cyan. may deserve it, but Qjet doesn't, and being an ass doesn't help make your point. Also, being an ass is my shtick. :P

Elexis: I don't think that addresses Qjet's point. He wants to be able to select a group of DGs, then tell them where to go, step by step, without using an officer. He is also talking about adjusting the interface such that the extra clicks would not deselect the selected group of DGs (look at how bert described it earlier).